Thanks! I'll look it, and the article, over sometime in the next couple days. Resolute 00:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dank: - Man, I totally forgot about this! I already have a proposed TFA blurb for Richard in my sandbox. The goal was a blurb with as many high quality articles as I could come up with. That proposal has 4 FAs, 2 FLs and 3GAs in it. Which, I hope, would be some sort of record. Resolute 12:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I need to do a character count on that, could you get rid of the icons? - Dank (push to talk) 13:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Done - see same link. I created that one when toying with the idea of a TFA blurb that was all GA or better links. Sort of burned out before the finish though. Resolute 13:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Great, that's 988. 1025 is generally as low as I go, can you give it a little more? - Dank (push to talk) 13:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Just dropped a sentence from your proposed TFA blurb in - though it might overload the back end with "on date x, y occurred" comments. Could use a little more tweaking. In either case, I think the Richard Riot and The Hockey Sweater notes need to be there, as both are significant examples of Richard's impact on Canadian history and culture. Resolute 14:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Resolute. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your edit on the Matthews article, but I'm just letting you know that while Malone and Hyland scored 5 in their NHL debuts, they had previously played for the NHA and are thus not considered rookies by the NHL. Source. Spilia4 (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Spilia4: - In fairness, there was no such concept as a "rookie" in 1917 and we can't really utilize a modern concept anachronistically like that. However, the claim that Matthews was the first to score four goals in his NHL debut is flat wrong, and that is what I removed. Once the media sorts itself out, there will surely be a citeable and correct statement like "first in modern history" that we can use to puff up his remarkably impressive achievement. Cheers! Resolute 02:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Resolute: I can agree to that, but the same argument can made made for what is considered a dynasty (3 cups in 5 years). Due to a lack of salary cap, it was much easier to win 3 in 5 than it is now, and while most would consider the current Blackhawks a dynasty, the NHL does not. Same for Matthews and his 4 goals. However, I am updating the Matthews article now and will include both the 4 goal "record" alongside an explanation of Malone and Hyland's accomplishments, as this is the consensus as of now.Spilia4 (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I certainly would not consider the Hawks a dynasty. ;) But yes, an explanatory note would be a must if we are going to treat this as a record, so good call there. Resolute 02:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Spilia4:- Actually as far as dynasties go we actually know what are officially recognized as a dynasty by the NHL. There are 9 teams. This is what the Dynasty (sports) uses as a reference for dynasties in hockey. The cutoff the NHL/HHOF seems to use is at least 4 championships. The Ottawa Senators taking 8 years to do so being the longest time frame, so it is still possible for them to join the list. -DJSasso (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I just misread your comment I realize, you already probably know. Based on arguments I have seen online, it is really only Blackhawks fans who think they are a dynasty. ;) -DJSasso (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.

The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring.

Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!

If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

Hello, Resolute. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.

For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):

First place – $200

Second & Third place – $50 each

Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.

Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address.

After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.

Hey Resolute. I see you have not been so active lately, but I thought I'd try my luck. I initiated a PR for Joe Warbrick and was hoping you'd have some time to take a look. The Bot is down (since November!) so the request isn't even listed at WP:PR. The review can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Joe Warbrick/archive1. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks! -- Shuddetalk 10:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)

Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)

Hi Resolute, as a past commenter on previous SPIs involving UrbanNerd, just want to advise of the latest whack-a-mole SPI here. Hope all is well. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Now there is a name I haven't heard in awhile. I forget if I am considered "involved" with him so I will let someone else handle it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, the resiliency of trolls is impressive, if nothing else. Resolute 19:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

To unearth an old memory, Resolute, this troll is probably reeling that the Calgary CMA officially usurped the Ottawa-Gatineau CMA as fourth largest in Canada yesterday, and threatened that the Edmonton CMA is now ~2K back. [1] I'd antagonize him but won't sink to his level. That is his MO.
Didn't realize you were retired. I assume retired from adminship, but it appears your editing frequency is down too. You sun setting on that front as well? Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. Burned out on research/editing a while ago. Without that, all that's left is the meta-arguments - which weren't fun at the best of times - and reverting back when people "fix" the fact that the Frank Slide happened when the town was in the NWT. I still poke around, but desire is very low. Resolute 23:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Not to pressure you or anything, but I kind of got an idea to create a decent bibliography of hockey-related books to ultimately post somewhere here for general use (in that it would be a guide of what books to use and so on). Now I do plan to present it to WT:HOCKEY eventually, but wanted to see if you'd be up for adding anything, as I know you probably have a decent idea of what else to add (and got the more detailed knowledge of Alberta hockey). Like I said not a big deal either way, and obviously no immediate need to act, but thought I'd mention it in case you're interested. The list is currently living at User:Kaiser matias/Bibliography, so feel free to take a look. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah for sure, whenever you feel like adding feel free to. And I can relate to being retired, was mostly at that point the past while, but now have too much free time so needed to occupy it somehow. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks saw you added a whole stash of things. Knew you had some interesting titles there, which is partly why I did this; want to see what else I should be perusing for my own curiosity. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Yw. Most of my other references you already had listed. About the only exception is the 150 or so media guides I have. Resolute 23:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:

Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.

Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,

1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.

Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:

Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.

1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.

Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.

Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Resolute. I was wondering; is there a discussion underway (outside of the Gard page) concerning proper naming of children? You alluded to an MOS discussion but I'm not finding it. Perhaps I'm not looking in the right place. Thanks, Coretheapple (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.